Smith et al v. Washington State et al

Filing 73

ORDER denying 65 Motion for Reconsideration; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 8/11/2015 (DN). (cc to pltfs Malone, Kent, Perkins, Mitchell)

1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8

ROBERT SMITH, et al.,

CASE NO. C14-5974 RBL-JRC

9
Plaintiffs,
10

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION [DKT #65]

v.
11
WASHINGTON STATE, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. #65]

15 of the Court’s Order [Dkt. #62] adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
16 [Dkt. #45], and GRANTING the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss [Dkt. #s 8 and 12], and
17 requiring the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.
18

Pursuant to Local Rule 7(h)(1), motions for reconsideration are disfavored, and will

19 ordinarily be denied unless there is a showing of (a) manifest error in the ruling, or (b) facts or
20 legal authority which could not have been brought to the attention of the court earlier, through
21 reasonable diligence. The term “manifest error” is “an error that is plain and indisputable, and
22 that amounts to a complete disregard of the controlling law or the credible evidence in the
23 record.” Black's Law Dictionary 622 (9th ed. 2009).
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION [DKT #65] - 1

1

Reconsideration is an "extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of

2 finality and conservation of judicial resources." Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d
3 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). "[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly
4 unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence,
5 committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law." Marlyn
6 Natraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). Neither
7 the Local Civil Rules nor the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, which allow for a motion for
8 reconsideration, is intended to provide litigants with a second bite at the apple. A motion for
9 reconsideration should not be used to ask a court to rethink what the court had already thought
10 through — rightly or wrongly. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F.Supp. 1342, 1351 (D.
11 Ariz. 1995). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for
12 reconsideration, and reconsideration may not be based on evidence and legal arguments that
13 could have been presented at the time of the challenged decision. Haw. Stevedores, Inc. v. HT &
14 T Co., 363 F.Supp.2d 1253, 1269 (D. Haw. 2005). “Whether or not to grant reconsideration is
15 committed to the sound discretion of the court.” Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes & Bands
16 of the Yakima Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003).
17
18
19
20
21

Plaintiffs’ Motion does not meet this standard. It is not materially different than their
opposition to the initial motion. The motion was well-taken, the Report and Recommendation
//
//
//

22
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION [DKT #65] - 2

1 was correct, and the Court will not reconsider its prior decision. The Motion for Reconsideration
2 [Dkt. #65] is DENIED.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated this 11th day of August, 2015.

6

A

7

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

5

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION [DKT #65] - 3